Three new Lenses Announced: 24-70 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8

[Alan]

May I ask a couple of questions about this new lens? Bryan mentioned his disappointment (along with several others on this forum) about the price tag for a non-IS version. He believes the price premium will be worth it, though.

What exactly is to be expected from this lens? Better sharpness at 2.8, I suppose. At narrower stops, does the previous version perform poorly? Not really.

I would think that if it's print that's coming out of this lens, is anyone really going to notice the difference? Versus the previous one, to be compared to?

I would also guess not.

At the wide end, most people will likely use this for landscape photography. They stop the lens down for this, mostly.

Add to this what a good photo editing program could do to the images, the price difference on this lens seems way out of line. Especially with no IS. Of course, if one didn't own a 24-70, they might bite on the new version.

Overall, this announcement had me rolling my eyes into the back of my head, and I barely got them back into focus.

[w349]

In Canon's defence, the 24-70 is often used for photographing people/events. For this purpose I tend to prefer a shutter speed of 1/80th or above, anyway, which is sufficient to prevent camera shake at even the longest focal length on a full-frame body.

Also, there's no stopping Canon from producing a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, too. Just look at the 70-200 range, there are 4 of them! - but how much do you think THAT would cost?

[HDNitehawk]

Also, there's no stopping Canon from producing a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, too. Just look at the 70-200 range, there are 4 of them! - but how much do you think THAT would cost?

$2,700 and if it produces IQ like as good as 70-200mm F2.8 II count me in.

The 24-70mm F2.8 was long overdue for an upgrade. If you have some of the recent released lenses and compared the IQ to the older versions, it is apparent the 24-70mm needed this upgrade. IS or no, there are many who will make the upgrade. I have already sold my 24-70mm because I was expecting this release and I have just not been pleased with the original versions performance. I will wait and see Bryans review and tests before making the decision to buy.

[btaylor]

Well most people have covered it pretty well.

I too am highly disappointed at the lack of IS on the 24-70mm II. To be honest I rarely get my 24-70mm out any more. I use the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 or the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on the 5D2 for the majority of my regular pics and the Canon 17-40mm for landscapes. So I doubt I would have upgraded anyway.

I'm more interested in lenses with wider apertures than 2.8 in the 24-70 range anyway because the OOF blur is a bit uneventful. But it's disappointing nontheless as to me it appears Canon aren't listening to what their customers want. Canon users have been begging for a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS for a very long time. The weight difference is negligible and the 82mm filter size just means people need to spend more again on filters.

[Raid]

I always find these posts the most strange of all. I wouldn't want this to become a Troll site. While we now know that new lenses are on the way, we don't know much about them.

We don't have any knowledge of how good or bad these lenses are. I'm happy to wait for Bryan's review before commenting. Yes I would have liked IS in the 24-70, now I want to know why it wasn't provided, not interested heckling. I eagerly await the ISO crops as they are so informative.

The demise of The Digital Journalist means that we don't have any access to those who know inside Canon, like Chuck Westfall. I found this monthly feedback highly informative as it provided real technical knowledge of their products and most importantly, a window into Canon's thinking.

I hope Bryan can get some feedback from Canon. Would Bryan be happy to host a Canon feedback portal?

Thanks
Tony

[btaylor]

There's a big difference between trolling a forum and writing a post relevant to the thread topic.

The fact is, I don't think Canon have listened to what their customers want here in relation to the new 24-70mm because it lacks image stabilisation.

I thought a forum was here for people to voice opinions about various topics.

[HDNitehawk]

The demise of The Digital Journalist means that we don't have any access to those who know inside Canon, like Chuck Westfall. I found this monthly feedback highly informative as it provided real technical knowledge of their products and most importantly, a window into Canon's thinking.

I hope Bryan can get some feedback from Canon. Would Bryan be happy to host a Canon feedback portal?

It seems that a two way talk between Canon and Customer exists in only a limited way. Canon keeps its plans under wrap until they choose to let it out at a strategic time. I am sure this is all defense and offense to protect their market share and to keep the competition off guard. I doubt you will see any kind of feedback portal, other than the usual press releases that come out right before an item comes to market.

I think the views expressed here are useful, if Canon's marketing has any sense they would monitor all the forums to see what people are thinking. Even big national news organizations monitor the web for information, why wouldn't a large corporations marketing department monitor the web to see what people are saying about their product.

As for the 24-70mm and no IS, if it had IS pre-ordering the lens was close to a no brainer for me. Without IS I probably will be much less likely to buy the lens, as it was the one feature I was looking for. I think it is good for Canon to know that some of it's hard core customers were disappointed.

[bob williams]

Wow, How did Canon fowl this up? Surely they are listening to some photographers, Im just not sure which ones. Like most of the folks on TDP, I too was surprised and dissapointed that the new 24-70 didn't have IS; and at $2k+, who are they going to sell this beast too? So I started thinking:

1. 95% of all my shooting is done from a tripod when it is usually recommended to turn IS off. Even If I am not shooting from a tripod, I usually stabilize from something else such as a monopod, sandbag or the hood of my truck.

2. IQ has become the defining benefit of all of my lens choices. I don't care how heavy, what features it has or even what the filter size is as long as it is capable of producing high quality resolution---I am willing to practice and develop new skills to overcome "feature shortcomings" as long as the IQ is top notch.

So, I would actually consider this new lens if I was convinced that the IQ was $1000 better than the old 24-70 ( I'll have to see this to believe it).

I have been shopping for a good walk around and was really hoping that the new 24-70 would meet that need. I have had a 24-105L but I wasn't satsified with the the IQ or the maximum aperature---so I sold mine to my boss, which is why I am back in the market for a walk around lens. For now, My walk around lens is a 50L or my 100-400 if I am hoping to find critters. Until, someone else really impresses me with the new 24-70, I am going to have to pass and seriously consider an old 24-70.

Just my 2cw

[Dr Croubie]

Until, someone else really impresses me with the new 24-70, I am going to have to pass and seriously consider an old 24-70.

I'd be hanging out for the reviews of that new Tamron (or was it Sigma?). Build quality won't be L-worthy, but neither will that pricetag...

[Raid]

Well I’m no professional photographer and not even a gifted amateur.

According to Canon Rumors there were at least 5 test versions of the 24-70 and at least 1 with IS. Again according to Canon Rumors the reason for not going with the IS version was the increased size and weight of the lens.

Now I have no idea why Canon didn’t make this lens with IS, but I also don’t know why Canon would sell a 5.3Kg (11.8lbs) prime with IS, as I could never hold it.

Any large company like Canon would monitor the market but they monitor the sections of the market they target with their products. Understanding who and why people buy your products is a key. The only thing we do know for sure about Canon is that IQ is one of their major drivers.

We all know that Canon has a selected group of pro photographers it provides with test lenses and bodies. If IS was a make or break factor for these users would they have released a non-IS version? We now need to ask, what part of the market is Canon aiming for with this lens?

To be serious, If Canon were to read all of the forums for what users want is an EF 10-600mm IS f2. It must have perfect IQ with no CA, no distortion, < 1kg (2.2lbs) and be no bigger than 100mm x 200mm (4x8”).

The only place we are going to get the real answer is from Canon directly.